What Have You Bought Recently?

[bizarre_eye@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs

I wouldn't say it's a recent thing at all; there is loads of characterisation and character development in the likes of The Towering Inferno and The Poseidon Adventure. Also, films like the Indiana Jones, Star Wars and Jaws would easily be classified as blockbusters.

I think MTDS means that it is a recent thing for him to like 'dumb and CGI filled' films and not that the films themselves have only recently been akin to this. At least this is what I infer from his post.

[keirarts]

I would also add that films that try to please everyone end up with the 'transformers effect' with budgets so high on films and marketing so expensive the latest blockbusters need to be mega hits in order to survive. That aside we still have directors like Jim Jarmusch, Quentin Tarantino, Gaspar noe, Paul thomas anderson, wes anderson ect ect making films with clearly marked identity. About the best Blockbuster material imo is the Marvel cinematic universe stuff (by that i mean the in-house disney stuff) which actually manages to throw in some interesting subject matter into the film. (Captain America Winter soldier with its critique of the militeristic survelillance society) as well as letting the films retain some of their directors own personal identity.
Guardians of the Galaxy may be a mega budgeted blockbuster but its still clearly and identifiably a James Gunn film.

[Make Them Die Slowly]

Originally Posted by bizarre_eye@Cult Labs

I think MTDS means that it is a recent thing for him to 'dumb and CGI filled' films and not that the films themselves have only recently been akin to this. At least this is what I infer from his post.

Yep, what B_E said. I have recently been converted into a fan of the dumbarse blockbuster...plotless, no characterisation and with maximum shit blowing up all the better. I see them as the ultra rich cousins to z grade rubbish imagined by ten year olds. It is more of a personal aesthetics thing then anything to do with good or bad films and film making.

[bizarre_eye@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by keirarts

I think if a film has characters that inspire no passion either way then that is a flaw.

This is one of the problems I had with You're Next. With slasher films, usually you can side with either the victims or the killer(s). When both are as annoying and disposable as each other you (well, at least I) stop caring/rooting for a victor and switch off. You can sometimes enjoy other aspects such as the cinematography, score, editing, or performances, but unfortunately these were lacking too. I would point out that I didn't hate it, as much as felt completely neutral towards it as a piece of film-making.

As to your points regarding 'ghost train' analogies, I do agree with you up to a point, although a lot of it is all in the technique and presentation of these ideas for me. In The Legend of Hell House, I feel that there is genuine build-up of tension and a lot of character driven development coupled with some theoretical scientific analogies being tossed about thanks to a tight script that results in a multi-layered, interesting, and overall enjoyable film. At the core, the idea is far from original but the film expands on this idea through other means. However, I don't see this in modern takes on the idea much at all. Not only are they often dumbed/watered down to achieve lower age ratings in order to generate more $ at the box office, but they are presented in a way as to almost splice in key scenes and build a story around those scenes rather than the other way around. CGI and jump scares have become the norm and I feel modern horror audiences have almost come to expect these.

A good example is The Woman in Black. The original was a made for TV film and was far from big budget fare, yet it managed to create atmosphere and tension on a meager budget aided by solid performances. The end result is a creepy and enjoyable ghost film. The remake on the other hand (baby faced Potter aside) instead relies on splicing in CGI jump scares throughout its running time almost as if we have a group of people gathered around a Mac saying: "look what I made to go into that new horror film!... "If they don't like it maybe we can splice it into that other horror film coming out in a few months... look, I can tweak the image a bit, change some colour and shadow effects around, and ta-da! Job's done." The story is still a solid one irrelevant of whether it has been copied from somewhere (an original story doesn't have to necessarily play such a big part in it, as there are no original stories really anymore anyway - everything tends to be a spin-off or a homage to something), but the overall presentation suffers thanks to these increasingly (and annoyingly) proficient devices being used by film studios and directors. Obviously, a lot of people enjoy these as patrons wouldn't be flocking to their local cinemas in droves to see them otherwise, but I just find them very lazy.

Perhaps I'm overly cynical/critical and jaded towards a lot of these modern horror offerings, but it is very rare for me to stumble across anything new in the mainstream horror genre now that I feel is worthy of more than a one watch in order to satisfy basic curiosity.

'Tis all subjective of course, though.

[SShaw]

Originally Posted by keirarts

Guardians of the Galaxy may be a mega budgeted blockbuster but its still clearly and identifiably a James Gunn film.

Really? It's only his third feature (unless you count his segment in the dire Movie 43) how can he have any identifiable style?

Edit: Changed second to third. I forgot Slither.

[trebor8273]

picked this up today. £45 i really could not afford , but its probably the cheapest i will ever see it.

[keirarts]

Originally Posted by SShaw

Really? It's only his third feature (unless you count his segment in the dire Movie 43) how can he have any identifiable style?

Edit: Changed second to third. I forgot Slither.

I think a director can establish a style of film making that is identifiable after only a couple of films. Hell, oculus is clearly from the maker of absentia in its approach, tarantino, pt anderson ect all established a 'style' pretty quickly. I felt watching guardians that it retained a similar attitude, sense of humour and world view to both super and slither as well as tromeo and juliette.

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by keirarts

I don't really see modern films being any better or worse than older films.
I think there is a tendency with people to see what came before as in some way superior to whats being released now but i've never bought in to that notion at all.

Lets take films like Sinister, the conjuring and insidious. What I like to call 'ghost train movies' essentially designed to offer jumps and scares to the audience. I re-watched Legend of hell house and the haunting recently and honestly its the same tricks used in all of them, perhaps modern film makers have more to work with but essentially there is little difference.

To me The Haunting doesn't offer jump scares to the audience at all, neither do any of the great ghost stories. They rely on a slow build up of tension. Take The Haunting's most famous scene. Julie Harris is in bed and terrified by slight noise and suggestion - scraping sounds, the turn of a door handle. Not a jump scare or musical crash in sight and all the more effective for it.

Today's ghost films which are slickly edited and have music crashing round your speakers just don't work for me. I suppose it really is a question of what you find creepy - strange sounds and weird shadows in the dark of a room build up an atmosphere of horror second to none. Take Insidious - supposedly a great ghostly film. I could have turned it off after half an hour because it was so predictable in it's method of scariness and ended up just like every other film of the genre that's come out in the last fifteen years. A waste of time. The only films that seemingly try and scare the old way are Del Toro's ghost films, The Others and a mere handful more.

[nosferatu42]

Originally Posted by Demdike@Cult Labs

To me The Haunting doesn't offer jump scares to the audience at all, neither do any of the great ghost stories. They rely on a slow build up of tension. Take The Haunting's most famous scene. Julie Harris is in bed and terrified by slight noise and suggestion - scraping sounds, the turn of a door handle. Not a jump scare or musical crash in sight and all the more effective for it.

Today's ghost films which are slickly edited and have music crashing round your speakers just don't work for me. I suppose it really is a question of what you find creepy - strange sounds and weird shadows in the dark of a room build up an atmosphere of horror second to none. Take Insidious - supposedly a great ghostly film. I could have turned it off after half an hour because it was so predictable in it's method of scariness and ended up just like every other film of the genre that's come out in the last fifteen years. A waste of time. The only films that seemingly try and scare the old way are Del Toro's ghost films, The Others and a mere handful more.

I agree with you about Insidious, although i watched it all i though it relied to heavily on jump scares, didn't really enjoy it much and thought it was basically a copy of poltergeist in places. Also the demon reminded me of Darth Maul.
Also really like The Others, felt like a proper old school ghost story to me.

I agree with you on The Haunting mostly, but i'm sure the scene at the top of the spiral staircase made me jump when i first saw it.

I liked Sinister up to a point, till the creature/ghost showed up and ruined it for me.

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by nosferatu42

I agree with you on The Haunting mostly, but i'm sure the scene at the top of the spiral staircase made me jump when i first saw it.

It can still make you jump without a barrage of soulless technical effects which was my whole point.